Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 12:39 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > Do you really wish to burden every tracepoint user with the extra 
> > logic needed to deal with modules?
> 
> Not necessarily - i'm just outlining why i think that the 'dont 
> allow subsystems to utilize tracepoint callbacks' is a restriction 
> we should not live with voluntarily.

Well, unless someone has a bright idea that's what it comes down to. And
not having to care about modules when using tracepoint wins hands down
for me.

The issue seems rather simple:

Either we force everybody who uses a tracepoint to care about modules,
be this by having to do try_get_module() themselves or by having to
listen to some notifier and have their callback forcibly dropped on
unload -- both suck IMO, suck very hard indeed.

Or by having modules that use their own tracepoint be stuck, because
once you block unlock when a tracepoint has callbacks, and it installed
a callback on itself, its not going to go away.

And since I don't care about modules at all and really wish they'd never
been invented...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/